search_jobs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail by listing the returned fields (company, header line, salary if stated, link), but that overlaps with the existing output schema, and nothing is said about result ordering or truncation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the search scope is front-loaded, then the return shape. Every clause earns its place with no restating of the name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return structure, the description only needs to frame the search; it does that well. Minor gaps remain around pagination/limit behavior and the 'monthly threads' window, which is a domain concept a new agent may not know.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (terms, months, response_format documented; limit, visa_only and remote_only not). The description compensates slightly by naming the remote-only and visa-sponsoring behaviors behind two of the undocumented flags, which is more than the schema alone provides, but it says nothing about limit or the months window.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('job posts') plus the matching semantics ('mention all the given terms'), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like hiring_threads or skill_demand, which also surface job-market data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The mention of 'optionally remote-only or visa-sponsoring' implies the filtering context in which each flag matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to a sibling for aggregate/analytics queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.